Cargando…

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moug, Susan J., Fountas, Spyridon, Johnstone, Mark S., Bryce, Adam S., Renwick, Andrew, Chisholm, Lindsey J., McCarthy, Kathryn, Hung, Amy, Diament, Robert H., McGregor, John R., Khine, Myo, Saldanha, James D., Khan, Khurram, Mackay, Graham, Leitch, E. Fiona, McKee, Ruth F., Anderson, John H., Griffiths, Ben, Horgan, Alan, Lockwood, Sonia, Bisset, Carly, Molloy, Richard, Vella, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826775
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z
_version_ 1783246530866577408
author Moug, Susan J.
Fountas, Spyridon
Johnstone, Mark S.
Bryce, Adam S.
Renwick, Andrew
Chisholm, Lindsey J.
McCarthy, Kathryn
Hung, Amy
Diament, Robert H.
McGregor, John R.
Khine, Myo
Saldanha, James D.
Khan, Khurram
Mackay, Graham
Leitch, E. Fiona
McKee, Ruth F.
Anderson, John H.
Griffiths, Ben
Horgan, Alan
Lockwood, Sonia
Bisset, Carly
Molloy, Richard
Vella, Mark
author_facet Moug, Susan J.
Fountas, Spyridon
Johnstone, Mark S.
Bryce, Adam S.
Renwick, Andrew
Chisholm, Lindsey J.
McCarthy, Kathryn
Hung, Amy
Diament, Robert H.
McGregor, John R.
Khine, Myo
Saldanha, James D.
Khan, Khurram
Mackay, Graham
Leitch, E. Fiona
McKee, Ruth F.
Anderson, John H.
Griffiths, Ben
Horgan, Alan
Lockwood, Sonia
Bisset, Carly
Molloy, Richard
Vella, Mark
author_sort Moug, Susan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5487844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54878442017-07-03 Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study Moug, Susan J. Fountas, Spyridon Johnstone, Mark S. Bryce, Adam S. Renwick, Andrew Chisholm, Lindsey J. McCarthy, Kathryn Hung, Amy Diament, Robert H. McGregor, John R. Khine, Myo Saldanha, James D. Khan, Khurram Mackay, Graham Leitch, E. Fiona McKee, Ruth F. Anderson, John H. Griffiths, Ben Horgan, Alan Lockwood, Sonia Bisset, Carly Molloy, Richard Vella, Mark Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur. Springer US 2016-11-08 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5487844/ /pubmed/27826775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Moug, Susan J.
Fountas, Spyridon
Johnstone, Mark S.
Bryce, Adam S.
Renwick, Andrew
Chisholm, Lindsey J.
McCarthy, Kathryn
Hung, Amy
Diament, Robert H.
McGregor, John R.
Khine, Myo
Saldanha, James D.
Khan, Khurram
Mackay, Graham
Leitch, E. Fiona
McKee, Ruth F.
Anderson, John H.
Griffiths, Ben
Horgan, Alan
Lockwood, Sonia
Bisset, Carly
Molloy, Richard
Vella, Mark
Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title_full Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title_fullStr Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title_short Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
title_sort analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre u.k. study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826775
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mougsusanj analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT fountasspyridon analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT johnstonemarks analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT bryceadams analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT renwickandrew analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT chisholmlindseyj analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT mccarthykathryn analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT hungamy analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT diamentroberth analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT mcgregorjohnr analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT khinemyo analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT saldanhajamesd analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT khankhurram analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT mackaygraham analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT leitchefiona analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT mckeeruthf analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT andersonjohnh analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT griffithsben analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT horganalan analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT lockwoodsonia analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT bissetcarly analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT molloyrichard analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy
AT vellamark analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy